Jump to content

haroldsnepsts's Photo


Member Since 11 Feb 2004
Offline Last Active Jan 29 2015 08:26 PM

#2227142 Jonathan Ericsson Watch Thread

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 18 November 2011 - 01:44 PM

Hmm... did the same person say these two things?

I was actually just quoting you, pointing out your hypocrisy. Apparently negativity and player bashing is acceptable when it's someone you don't like.

I'm touched that you went and dug up my old posts though. It's good to know my hard work doesn't go unnoticed.

Ericsson was doing no such thing. There wasn't a single person in the area he moved into, and he left the entire left side of the net utterly wide open. It was yet another case of him being boneheaded.

Yes he was. Watch the replay. Vlasic wasn't his man. He helped out Helm, then went over to the slot and was watching Desjardin and Murray. He shouldn't have gone to the left side of the net because Helm was covering that, ineffectively.

Like I said, Ericsson was about #4 on the list of responsibility for that goal. Helm got overpowered inthe corner, Hudler and Smith looked confused as to who had who, Hudler lets Vlasic skate away unchecked behind the net, then Helm didn't cover the left side of the net well. For Ericsson to be at the left side of the net he would've run into Helm, been guilty of running around in his own end, and left two players wide open in the slot. It wasn't his responsibility.

I'd put Hudler most at fault, for peeling off his coverage of Vlasic, I'm guessing because he thought Smith would pick him up. Still, he shouldn't have let the puck carrier go unchecked behind the Wings net. It was lazy defensive play on his part.

#2227099 Jonathan Ericsson Watch Thread

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 18 November 2011 - 11:29 AM

This will most likely end up being a thread in which to rag on Ericsson.

Tonight, he yet again suffered a hideous lapse of awareness. It's beyond me what he thought he was accomplishing by watching Vlasic and drifting into the slot.

That's exactly what it will be, which is almost certainly why you created it.

I guess it's easier just to be negative than be optimistic.

And on the play you mention, Hudler, Helm and Smith did a poor job covering their assignments and got outworked or outmuscled. Yet you key in on Ericsson, who was actually moving to the slot to cover Desjardins and Murray after he went over to help Helm.

Ericsson is overpaid and likely won't earn his contract, but if you're going to rip on his play, that goal is a poor choice because he's about 4th in line for being responsible.

Edited because I couldn't spell Desjardins.

#2226520 Do They Deserve It?

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 17 November 2011 - 08:20 PM

People have been leaving Bertuzzi alone? What threads have you been reading??

Datsyuk and Zetterberg are the teams two star players and get almost 20 minutes of ice time a night. Of course the expectations are higher on them than Bert and Holmstrom.

Though I think you're barking up the wrong tree with Homer. He only plays 13 minutes a night, but has been among the better guys on the ice. Unlike many of the forwards this season, Homer goes to the tough areas of the ice, wins puck battles in the corners, and goes to the net. Obviously his skill set is limited, but it's probably not a coincidence that he hasn't been sitting out as much as Babcock made it sound like he would at the start of the season.

Also, Homer only had 26 points in 2002, so that's an odd year for you to pick. But Homer's been a pretty consistent 40 point guy most seasons.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love for the Wings to have a pure goalscorer on the top line, preferably one with speed. But of the current problems with this team, I wouldn't put Holmstrom in the top ten.

As for Helm, he can open up the whole rink with his speed, but he has hands that are marginally better than Draper's.

#2226486 Datsyuk knows he has been awful.

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 17 November 2011 - 06:23 PM

Wish Zetterberg would admit hes been horrendous as well.

Zetterberg is just as puzzled by his own scoring issues.

“Absolutely. I’m the same as Pav,” Zetterberg said.
“You’re trying to do everything right, working hard in practice, working hard in games. Hopefully it will turn around.”


#2226291 Datsyuk knows he has been awful.

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 16 November 2011 - 06:19 PM

It actually works out to around a 51 point pace, doesn't it?

Saying he's awful (even if he says it about himself) needs a big asterisk after it, as in awful *for Pavel Datsyuk.

But I don't think linemates are much of an excuse. Last season people were talking about how he's the best player in the world. Linemates shouldn't have that big of an impact when you're dealing with a star player, which Datsyuk is.

And it's not like he's had a bunch of great feeds that don't get converted. Sure that's happened on occasion, but more than points, he just doesn't look like himself this season. He doesn't have the puck on a string like he used to. And he's had a lot of turnovers (for him).

Hopefully it's just a funk and he'll break out of it very, very soon.

#2226192 Ryan Miller's opinion on Milan Lucic

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 16 November 2011 - 11:52 AM

Burke was on the radio this morning and he actually made a couple good points as to why goalies need to be protected that I didn't previously think about. He did mention their equipment being designed to stop pucks, not absorb body contact (which was my main issue).

- Goalies don't have the ability to skate around the entire ice and deliver hits (i.e. payback later in the game)
- Goalies are not trained, do not practice taking contact on a dailing basis like every other player.

Brian didn't like the hit at all, suggested Lucic did not play the puck and took it as an opportunity to run the goalie. That said, he agree with no suspension based on current rules.

It's a little scary when I find myself agreeing with Burke.

Years ago when the league was still discussing the trapezoid rule, Buccigross wrote a column about it. I emailed him saying I thought the simple solution was just to make goalies fair game outside the crease. Don't want them playing the puck? Then don't go far from home. He actually replied and made several good points similar to Burke's.

Goalies basically have anchors strapped to their legs which makes them a very easy target and at an unfair advantage to players. And that if the rule was that they were fair game, guys like Darcy Tucker (again this was a few years ago) would take every opportunity to crush goalies, which usually leads to all out melees on the ice and would be extremely disruptive to the game. Because even though it would be a legal hit, no team would stand for letting their goalie get run like that (except Buffalo, evidently). I have to agree given how many clean hits lead to fights these days.

Lucic absolutely took the opportunity to run Miller. Like I said before, if Shanny wanted to keep more in line with his earlier rulings, I think this warranted a fine.

If he was so concerned about his health he wouldn't have waited until then to come out with it as if he's tattling to the media about a concussion to try and get Lucic suspended. Throwing a fit like a baby to the media is pretty much on par with his stick swing, and makes me lose some respect for a goalie I had quite a large amount for. He should be above this type of whining.

I do love how, for concussions, unlike every other injury, it's the players who set a timetable for their own return, but doctors are supposedly expected to do something about it? Something isn't right.

Agree to disagree I guess, because you seem to be taking every piece of information about Miller's injury in the worst light. Waited to come out with it? Tattling to the media?

Where do you get that players are setting a timetable for his return? In every player I can think of that's had a major concussion recently, they talk about how they can't even have a full effort workout until the doctor clears them. Then they need to get cleared again for contact in practice.

#2226190 11/15 GDT: Red Wings 1 at Blues 2

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 16 November 2011 - 11:38 AM

Am I the only one who finds it strange that Hudler is getting the majority of the scorn right now considering the performance of Datsyuk and Zetterberg?

I'll admit that Cleary and Hudler have been terrible. But where are the leaders on forward? Franzen seems to be our go to guy now and he takes off nights, so how can this team stay competitive when we have two stars who aren't playing like it and a goal scorer who is taking on a role he shouldn't be taking?


Z and Dats are our star players and used to be the guys who made the players around them better. Babcock would always talk about how he puts a slumping player on a line with Zetterberg or Datsyuk to get that player going. Now we're spending a lot of time talking about their linemates helping them out.

Mule's always been streaky, but his work ethic and turnovers are killing me this season. Last night he threw a backhand clearing attempt to the middle of the blueline in his defensive zone.

Right now the Wings look like a team without a first line. How much scoring has come from the defense now?

#2225803 11/15 GDT: Red Wings 1 at Blues 2

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 15 November 2011 - 09:07 PM

You do your best to fit them in wherever you can.

If post counts only registered when they were about hockey, I'm guessing you'd have less than 10.

Hey, look over there on the tv, it's a hockey game!

#2225799 11/15 GDT: Red Wings 1 at Blues 2

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 15 November 2011 - 09:04 PM

Hardly as much as I used to. Thank you for chiming in, though. I really appreciate your concern.

What, am I not allowed the condescending lectures like you and a few others here?

I thought we could all pretend we're mods instead of talking about the game going on.

#2225776 11/15 GDT: Red Wings 1 at Blues 2

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 15 November 2011 - 08:59 PM

Don't play stupid. You know every discussion about "sparking the team" and "enforcers" and "beating people up" and "powerplay is our enforcer" and "talentless goon" and "every GM in the league" ends up the same way. The fact it always becomes a big pro/anti-enforcer circle jerk is what makes it worthless.

Yet you participate.

#2225767 11/15 GDT: Red Wings 1 at Blues 2

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 15 November 2011 - 08:55 PM

Ericsson needs to stop taking penalties.

I couldn't see the penalty because my stream froze, but I'm guessing it was when he knocked that guy on his ass?

He does need to cut down on penalties, but there I'm kind of okay with it. He needs to make guys pay around the net, and honestly Homer gets hits as bad or worse every game and it doesn't get called.

#2225481 Ryan Miller's opinion on Milan Lucic

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 15 November 2011 - 10:05 AM

You realize there is a provision in the charging rule allowing for supplementary discipline, right? You keep saying it was a charging penalty as if that means it shouldn't have been a suspension.

You're right that you can't prove intent. However, you can infer intent by looking at the actions and the likely result. A hard hit on someone in a vulnerable position is reasonbly likely to cause injury, therefore it is reasonable to infer that intentionally hitting (hard) a vulnerable player is intent to injure.

Regardless of what you or others think of the rule, the fact is goalies are not fair game. That means we can reasonably assume Miller did not feel (and should not have had) any need to protect himself from a hit. In my opinion, because goalies have that protection and therefore do not expect to be hit like that, goalies should always be considered vulnerable. So in my opinion, any hard, intentional hit on a goalie should be considered intent to injure and warrant a suspension.

I understand that it is subjective and not everyone will subscribe to the same logic. However, remember that a lack of 'proof' of intent is not proof of no intent. Also remember that this is a hockey league, not a court of law. We're not talking about sending someone to jail. We don't need to meet so strict a burden of proof.

This was a chance for the league to prove they are willing to suspend a star player (besides Pronger) as well as deter future actions they obviously do not want to see in game (goalies getting hit). In my opnion, Shanny missed on this one.


And in several instances where Shanny has handed out punishment, he made clear that while he doesn't think there was necessarily intent to injure, the play was so reckless that it in essence counts as intent. I'm pretty sure this was the case with Smith's hit. And an intent to injure penalty does not have to be called at the time for Shanahan to consider it in his ruling.

So Lucic didn't have to consciously be thinking "I want to hurt Miller while I have the chance." What he did was hit a player who was not eligible to be hit, which is a reckless play, and hardly surprising that Miller was hurt.

To be honest I don't know that it even warranted a suspension. I think it deserved a fine. But for Lucic to get no punishment shows that Shanahan is using a much different standard than he was early on. An illegal hit by a player who has been suspended in the past resulted in another player getting a concussion. Yet there was nothing more than a 2 minute penalty. That's surprising.

#2225394 NHL.com Poll

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 14 November 2011 - 08:19 PM

Which first-year-eligible player is most likely to get voted into the Hockey Hall of Fame in 2012?

Jeremy Roenick: 8.50%
Joe Sakic: 44.09%
Brendan Shanahan: 14.24%
Mats Sundin: 11.20%
All of the above: 21.97%

While Sakic is leading by far...why is does he have only 44% of the vote?

All of the above is second at 22%, which is sort of a vote for Sakic as well. So 66% think Sakic is getting in.

#2225393 Ryan Miller's opinion on Milan Lucic

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 14 November 2011 - 08:00 PM

Outrage yes, statements like wanting the Red Wings to exact retribution for an incident involving other teams, wondering rhetorically why people like Savard get cheap-shotted, calling Lucic trash, I see plenty of outrage. Surprising you don't.

Your analogy though has nothing to do with what occurred.

Goalies are not fair game, the technicality of this wasn't really debated or inferred otherwise.

The charging nature of the penalty was the fact that this was obviously not incidental contact -- the refs had to call that. If it was not a penalty to finish the check on a goalie playing the puck far away from his crease as any other skater playing the puck would be vulnerable to this would have been a non-issue.

It's not anywhere close to an intent to injure call on the ice. It was not a double minor, it was not a major, there was no misconduct, no match penalty, nothing. It isn't just Shanahan that saw it that way. Lucic simply tried to play the puck and when he was too close he decided to just brace himself and deliver a hit.

There's no argument that it's a penalty (if we're arguing by the NHL's rules, my opinion obviously is another issue) but you're not making any sense trying to justify a suspension.

If I'm not making sense to you in trying to justify the suspension, that may be because I wasn't actually trying to justify one.

You can cherry pick a few posts and make it sound as if there's this resounding outrage, but you were the one saying Miller swung his stick like a girl after breaking a nail, so you hardly look impartial on the matter. Most of this thread to me is people just discussing it, with a few people who already hate Lucic chiming in. And maybe one who apparently doesn't like Miller.

Also, the Red Wing in question happens to be the brother of the player who got run by Lucic. I'm not advocating it, but it's not like it was someone randomly saying the Wings should attack Lucic. They were just speculating on if his brother Drew would do anything.

I chose that analogy because we're talking about a player who isn't eligible to be hit, much like a player without the puck. If you hit a guy without the puck the intent may not have been to injure, but because you're hitting a player who probably isn't prepared to get hit, the chances of injury are higher, intent or not.

#2225364 Ryan Miller's opinion on Milan Lucic

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 14 November 2011 - 05:10 PM

I don't understand the outrage about the lack of suspension.

I can see where the charging call was made, even though I don't like it, but it was a shoulder hit, not a head shot, not a blind side hit, not any of these nitpicky ticky tack penalty du jour the NHL is confusingly trying to enforce. Lucic simply tried for the puck and braced himself to deliver a check to Miller. I doubt it was accidental, which is why it was a penalty, but it's not so bad nor such an intent to injure that it warrants a suspension just because Miller's helmet flew off and now it turns out he has a concussion. I don't think there's any sense to amplifying a punishment just because of outrage.

Has there really been a lot of outrage in this thread? To me it reads mostly as confusion.

As I said in my post, I think an argument can be made that it didn't warrant a suspension. But for Shanny to say it's due to lack of intent doesn't make a lot of sense and is a little surprising based on the standard he was using early in the season.

Goalies are not fair game. It's like if Lucic had lined up a player without the puck, didn't go out of his way to avoid contact, and even followed through on the hit like he did with Miller. He may not have intended to injure that player, but when you intentionally hit a guy who's not legally hittable, it's a grey area at best because the intent is pretty clearly to take a shot at someone you shouldn't.

If he wanted to keep in line with how he has been giving out punishment, honestly I think Shanny should've given a fine to Lucic for intentionally running a goalie and concussing Miller.